
*>% 



*$>■ o 






. j^agfvjj^vflj 









°o 







*o. 






,*« 









• o„ '_> 






V 



°o 




<>' »• ~ *.«. <»v 










<k V fi o " • * <$> 
























*°^ • 

• ■ ° A° s*» • » * 

**- ^ ** 




* <><»■•♦ 




♦«-♦♦ .*£ta \^ .-ss&fcfc. ♦*_♦♦ 








VV 







" ,# AT ... -A 



^ 














A 









^^ 













y ^ o 









V ,o«», 



/ ^°^ -J 



<o- 




PROTECTION TO SLAVE PROPERTY. 



SPEECH 



HON. A. 6. BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI 



IN DEFENCE OF 



HIS PROPOSITION FOR IMMEDIATE CONGRESSIONAL PROTECTION 
TO SLAVE PROPERTY IN THE TERRITORIES, 



THE REPLY OF SENATOR FITCH. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 6, 186<h 



WASHINGTON : 

1860. 






*■%* 



W«s1 



SPEECH 



The Senate having resumed the consideration of the resolutions offered by the Senator 
from Mississippi, (Mr. Brown,) relative to proDerty in the Territories- 
Mr. BROWN said : 

Mr President : I ask, before proceeding with mv remarks, that the 
resolutions may be read. 

The Secretary read them, as follows : 

Resolved, That the Territories are the common property of all the States and that it in 
the privilege of the citizens of all the States to go into the Territories S every kind o 

EaES? 5 ^ sr/^ss west's 

rP^Sf' , « That the . C ° mmit , tee 0Q territories be instructed to insert, in any bill they may 
ESS , 1G ° r f? 1Zat . IOn ° f new Territo » e «- * clause declaring it to be the duty of the 
lerritonal Legislature to enact adequate and sufficient laws for the protection of all kinds 
of property as above described, within the limits of the Territory and th°t inon ita 
failure or refusal to do so, it is the admitted duty of Congress to i?ter P 2e Sd \ZZ^ 

Mr BROWN When I introduced these resolutions, Mr. Presi- 
dent I acted under a deep sense of duty. I had seen the southern 
people excluded from most-indeed, from all but one-of the organized 
Territories of this Union with their slave property; and I believed 
tnat the same thing would occur in reference to the Territories about 
to be organized, unless Congress interposed .its authority to prevent 
it. 1 therefore, in reference to Territories about to be organized, 
moved resolutions which looked to direct, immediate, and positive 
protection to slave property. As to the Territories already organized 
I .soon after introduced a bill looking to the overthrow of their un- 
friendly acts and to the substitution of laws friendly to this species of 
property. In all these I sought what I believed to belong to the 
southern people under the Constitution ; nothing more. At one time 
X supposed these resolutions would meet the approbation of Democratic 
benators generally. I have been undeceived on that point Th«ir 
reiusal, however, to sustain them has in nowise shaken my confidence 
in their correctness ; and I stand before you to-day, sir, to plead the 
cause of these resolutions. If I fail to convince the Senate that the 
resolutions are right in principle, I trust I shall at least have the 
consolation of feeling that my hearers believe me to be sincere in 
ottering them. 

The resolution, and the bill which I subsequently introduced, and 
to which I have already alluded, embody these substantive principles : 
fcrst, that a slave is property under the Constitution of the United 
Mates ; secondly, tnat, being property, his owner has the same right 
to take him to a common Territory, and there hold him as property, 

Jnti « ST m Z J* 7 0t 1 hei ' 1 8pecies of P™perty has to take that 
species and hold it there ; thirdly, that having the constitutional right 



to take his property to the Territory, he is of necessity entitled to 
have it protected after he gets it there, else the right would be nugatory. 
Up to this point, I have not found myself differing materially with 
my Democratic friends ; hut at this point, as was well said by my 
honorable friend from Indiana, [Mr. Fitch,] we begin to diverge. I 
insist that it is primarily the duty of a Territorial Legislature to 
afford me the protection to which I am entitled ; but the Legislature 
failing or refusing, that it then becomes the duty of Congress to afford 
that protection ; and here comes the rub. Is Congress, under any 
circumstances, bound to afford me adequate and sufficient protection 
for my slave property ? I insist that it is ; that if slaves are property 
under the Constitution, they are entitled to the same protection which 
is afforded to any other kind of property ; and that, whatever obliga- 
tions were imposed by the Constitution, are imposed directly upon 
Congress, and not upon a Territorial Legislature. Whatever appeal 
I, as a citizen of one of the sovereign States of this Union, address 
for the maintenance of my constitutional rights, I necessarily address 
to Congress; and why? Because all the powers imposed by the 
Federaf Constitution to make laws were imposed upon Congress, and 
not, I repeat, upon a Territorial Legislature. 

Sir, when the Constitution was formed, there was no such thing as 
a Territorial Legislature, and there was no such thing for many years 
afterwards. No authority is found in the debates which gave rise to the 
Constitution, indicating that the framers of that instrument supposed 
there ever would be such a legislative body as a Territorial Legislature ; 
therefore, no obligations were imposed upon such Legislatures by^the 
Constitution. The obligations were imposed, I say again, upon Con- 
gress ; and Congress, acting within its legitimate sphere, may transfer 
these obligations, in a limited degree, to one of its own creatures; but 
Congress cannot, in the act of transferring an obligation to an inferior,^ 
discharge itself from the obligations imposed by the Constitution, li 
I am right, therefore, in assuming that slaves are property, and that 
the owners have the right to take them into the Territories, and have 
them protected, I must be right in concluding that the duty rests 
upon Congress to afford that protection. If it is done by the creature, 
well • if it is not so done, then it is the duty of the creator, upon whom 
the obligation was imposed by the Constitution, to interpose and see 

that it is done. ' , . T „ , 

I am told, sir, that these resolutions, and the bill by which I fol- 
lowed them, cannot be passed. This is not because they do not embody, 
in the main, sound principles, or are not capable of being so amended 
as to bring them within reach of nearly all, if not, indeed, all die 
Democratic Senators. I know that in no sort of form can they retain 
their substance, and yet command Republican votes. But I am told 
that thev cannot be so amended, so thrown into shape, as to command 
the votes of conservative Democrats. Sir, there was a day when 1 had 
<rreat respect for the word conservative. I thought it meant a politi- 
cian who would retain the substance of a proposition, and yet so 
accommodate the details as to meet his brethren ; but a conservative 
seems to me now to be a sort of go-between, a divider of principles, 
demand ino- a little of one thing and a little of another, and not much 



&&ind wLfff mi f l t0ll 'Z* i] ?^> ^ looks North and 
ooutu, J^ast and West, for customers ; and cares very little from wW 
direction they come, if they only pay their toll. I tfank GoTthat 
am not such a conservative. I thank my Maker that Pie so created 
me that I am capable of feeling earnest convictions ; and that H, 

mXXt "*** m ° ral C ° Ur ^ e t0 W themln theS^ 

^ £* v Ji Car o h f ll ^ ested th at a compromise may be effected hv 
which, if the South will agree to surrender everything of the sub 
stance on another question, she will be allowed to retains* thins «f 

the substance upon this proposition ; in plain En-lish that "• 

bfi e e ;^v liscrimi r tin f tiriff ' if we -» <^ 

be levied upon coal and iron and other northern production then 
certain northern men will yield enough of their oppositiof 2m this 
question to give us that sort of protection which will be reo red for 

t7ked l o7 TKW" tHe Ten ' it01 " ieS - J haVe ^ardS'S 
Wked of. I find the proposition embodied in a very weU-written 
letter from a former member of this body, a distinguished [I ,1 " ° 
of iNew Jersey-I meanCommodore Stockton. I h^e ea rd itspokenof 
here and elsewhere It therefore comes in a form sufficiently irntsTn J 
to induce me to look at it, and address myself to it I Tend an 

X T Z Z*$i? C ° mm0d - e *°*»?» *» SecretaV^ 
The Secretary read as follows : 

"I am for peace— I am for the Union— and therefore T *rA ft™- ™„™,„- 
will insure peace. The North is infuriated Ji th I tf, • * , co ^ ces310n - * concession 

faithfully with the requisition of the fuSi^Xe law To^ ?"% 2 " Com P J 7 

southern fellow-citizens to take their slave proper^ -into thrToZl^™ ^ *$* ° f ° U1 ' 
tion there under the Constitution of the S£ lemtories, and to i to protoo- 

"Wh^le the South in return should concede ' snpo ifi<-> rlnt;,,* > ,, 
; tariff' than that at which the North at preset so S TneSl y complain T* **"*****. 

Mr BROWN. It is thus seen, Mr. President, that we have the 
broad proposition submitted to us to surrender our' opposition ?6 pro- 

VhtT 7i T' t0 f G "^ l hat WG ma ? ° btain ™ constitutional 
rights I say it m all respect to gentlemen ; but never can H 

brought to the point of buying my constitutional rights from an? one 
Sir, we are entit ed to have our slave property protected, or we are not" 
If we have the right, it is your duty to respect it ; to respect it wth 
out qualification. If we have no such righto, then we Should make 
no such demand. Now, what we ask is, respect for a right -uarantted 
oy the Constitution What is it that the tariff party ask? ° Tha vou 
will so shape your legislation as to do them a Lvov. I have not un 
derstood that the most zealous and earnest advocate of a protective" 
tariff ever claimed that Congress was bound to afford him protection 
but only that Congress might afford it, if Congress thought fi There' 
lore the cases are not equal. ° J-'iere- 

askm tn e dn k H ' t0 p Si T Ve n- P an a^ 1 ^ "J**- Is it quite modest to 
asknsto do this? Is it quite modest in Pennsylvania and New 



Jersey, represented, as they are, upon this floor, and by an overwhelm- 
in o- Free-Soil majority in the other wing of the Capitol, making con- 
sistent and persistent war upon our slave property ; Pennsylvania 
represented here by a moderately active friend to the South and to the 
whole country, [Mr. Bigler,] and by a warm and zealous opponent of 
slavery on the other side of the Chamber, [Mr. Cameron;] New Jersey 
represented in the same way, by my honorable friend, [Mr. Thomson, J 
and by his colleague on the other side, [Mr. Ten Eyck;] and both of 
them in the other House by an almost united Free-Soil delegation ; is 
it quite modest in those States, who thus make war upon slave prop- 
erty, to ask the owners of that species of property to allow it to be taxed 
for their benefit ? What would Pennsylvania think, what would IS ew 
Jersey think, if the South should ask their people to submit to taxation, 
that our people might realize larger profits upon their investments in 
land and slaves ? Suppose I had invested $100,000 in a plantation and 
slaves, and found that it was not paying— that it did not yield me 
three per cent, upon the investment : how long, let me ask my friend 
from New Jersey, [Mr. Thomson,] or from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bigler,] 
and their colleagues on the other side, would Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey listen in patience to my appeal that their people should be 
taxed that I might realize larger profits ? And yet, that is their ap- 
peal ' You tell me that you have invested large sums of money in 
manufacturing establishments, mills, and machinery, and all that sort 
of thin*, and that your profits are very small ; and you ask me to tax 
the people whom I* represent, through the agency ot discriminating 
tariff laws, to enable you to realize larger profits. This you do, 1 
repeat, while you are making war on the very people who buy your 
croods, and consume your iron and your coal. Is it modest I Can 
you really expect us to do it? Can you expect us to tax our slave 
labor for the benefit of your white labor ? m 

Sir the protection which we ask is, protection for the property 
itself'- not that incidental protection which will enable us to realize 
larger profits. The property itself is in danger ; war is levied upon 
it and it is threatened with destruction. In this state of things, we 
come to the common Government, and ask it to interpose its authority 
to shield our property from destruction. Sir, if your cotton nulls 
and your shoe factories ; if your machinery, if your iron works and 
your coal mines, were menaced by an enemy about to destroy them, 
to destroy the actual property itself, and you came to me as a southern 
Senator, and asked for assistance, I would say, "Yes, we will send 
the armies of the Government to protect your property and do what- 
ever the case requires." If the property of our northern brethren 
was threatened with destruction from any quarter, and they appealed 
to me to pass additional laws for its preservation, I would not hesitate 
an instant. If it was threatened by the incendiary, it it was 
threatened by mob violence, if it was invaded from any quarter, and 
was about to be destroyed, I should hold it to be the duty of the Govern- 
ment to interpose, not only with its armies, but, through its legislative 
authority, clothing the courts, and arming the Executive with all 
necessary power for its protection. I mean to be explicit on this 
point. 



Now what do we ask Our property is thus menaced. It ha 
already been driven out of Washington, Oregon, California, Nebraska 
Kansas and, to a great extent, from Utah, receiving protection nc 
where but in the Territory of New Mexico. War is made upon it 
persistent war ; war in the States and war in the Territories- an 
when I come to ask you for protection, what do you tell me?' If 
will give you that sort of protection to your manufacturing establish 
ments i, your coal mines, and your iron furnaces, that will Enable yoi 
to realize larger profits, then you will consider the proposition to pro 
tect my actual property, not my profits, but the property itself 
reject the proposition with scorn. 

But, sir, while it is admitted by many northern men that we liav, 
not had justice m the Territories, that our rights have not beei 
respected as they should have been, they yet tell us that we are no 
pursuing the right remedy in the right way ; that, instead of comim 
to Congress, we ought to go to the courts, and there, armed with tin 
common law and the Constitution as expounded by the Supreme 
Court, we shall find adequate and sufficient protection I will pea 
my respects very briefly to this argument of the Constitution and th 
common law Before I proceed to do so, I will send to the Secretary'* 
desk, and ask to have read, a paragraph from the speech of ™ 
honorable friend from Indiana, [Mr. Fitch.] 
The Secretary read, as follows : 

" But j 1 lss f d if Congress does not give this protection, it can nowhere be found From 
this opinion I d.ssent. It can be found in the common law It now exists in kZI . , a 
the common law, without any congressional or other leg^ativt ena'tmen If any s ecies" 
property has pecuhant.es rendering other than a common law remedy nees rvfoH n 
taction, it - the d uty of the local Legislature to grant that Tem^^ZXZiStion wa« 
requ.red in tins District, it would be the duty of Con<rre«s to <rrant it ir? ; P - ■ i 
Territory, it is the duty of the Territorial lii^^ST^J^^S^^ 
believe any Territorial Legislature will seek to evade OerHinlv tL«. ; - „ "nwillmg to 
Territory adapted to slavery and where it LiLTIs liS^x^and IZ^Zfe'Zn 
is consequently required, and is withheld. I know what my friend on my riX | M? Browv I 
has in his mind. He would cite to me the late action of the Nebraska Tor ?!• I m , J 

as proof to the contrary. [Mr. Browk assents.] I do not so deem it' SttSiSfiS 
protection was requ.red there ; scarce a single slave exists, or is likely to exist .n that Terri 
tory; and hence the action of its Legislature, ^^tM^Bb^bCi^^'ni^^^ 
a mere mockery-a brutumfulmen-nnd vetoed as unconstitutional " 7 ' 

Mr BROWN. My friend is very confident in the opinion that a 
remedy can be found in the common law. I intend to treat the Sen- 
ator s argument with every possible respect, and he knows that I am 
incapable of treating him otherwise than with marked consideration 
Jiut sir, when doctors get to talking about common law they are very* 
apt to make mistakes. I have great confidence in my friend's opinion 
so far as medicine is concerned, for he is a doctor of medicine He 
will excuse me it I say I have not very much confidence in his opinions 
as a lawyer, because he does not claim to be a doctor of law If I 
wanted the treatment of a physician, I know of no one whom I would 
call in sooner than my friend. If amputation was necessary, I know 
o. no surgeon whom I could trust to take off a limb with more perfect 
assurance than my friend. But, sir, if I wanted a case pleaded in 
court involving acquaintance with the common law, he will excuse 
me if I say that I would rather have a man who had dived a little deeper 
into Coke and Blackstone. r 



This argument is so often used, and has sunk so deeply into the 
public mind, that I feel, in the attitude which I occupy to-day called 
upon to meet it ; not only as it is presented by the honorable Senator 
from Indiana, but as presented by others. I believe that the Consti- 
tution and the common law, unaided by statutory law, do notatiord, 
and cannot in the nature of things afford, sufficient protection lor 
slave property in the Territories ; and by way of illustration 1 beg 
to make cases. Suppose I go with my slave to Kansas, and he is 
decoyed from my possession; taken, not into Illinois or Indiana, or 
any other non-slaveholcling State, where it may be said I could pursue 
him under the provisions of the fugitive slave law; but taken Irom the 
county in which I am domiciliated, simply into an adjoining county— 
not stolen, recollect, but simply decoyed from my possession ; induced 
by si^ns, winks, and nods, which I never could establish in a court ol 
iustic°e, to leave my service; taken and harbored m an adjoining 
county In this state of the case I undertake to pursue him as my 
property, and recover him, armed with the Constitution and the com- 
mon law: now, sir, how shall I base my action? Will my friend 
tell me, as he seems to understand the common law, what is to be my 
suit? I have been told elsewhere, and probably I shall be told again, 
that if I could find the identical property taken, I could bring an 
action of replevin and recover the property. So I could. It I could 
find the exact property, I could bring my writ of replevin and recover 
it • but then, the same man who decoyed it from me yesterday might 
decoy it away to-morrow, and then I suppose I must ormg another 
action of replevin ; and so I must go on multiplying my actions to all 
eternity, recovering my property one day, simply to have it again 
decoyed from my possession the next. . j.,,, ,, 

But suppose I cannot find the property ; that it is so secreted that I 
cannot get at it ; that John Brown's man, finding me m hot pursuit ot 
my slave, secretes him. I prove that he had him m his possession, 
but I cannot find him. What then ? I suppose I am told that then 
I am to bring an action of trover, or an action of trespass, or some 
other action sounding in damages, and that a friendly court and jury 
would assess me the full amount of my damages. So they might ; 
but what will my judgment be worth if the offending party happens 
to be, as he would be nineteen times out of twenty an insolvent tV 1 
should have a return of nulla bona, and be compelled myselt to loot 
the bill of costs. I should have lost my property ; been engaged m 
a litigious lawsuit ; recovered a worthless verdict, and had to pay the 
costs° This is your common law. No, Mr. President the experience 
of every State in this Union, for more than one hundred years has 
demonstrated the proposition that slave property is not secure without 
statutory laws. The Constitution has been in existence for seventy 
years ; the common law has been in existence here ever since the colo- 
nies adopted it ; and never, at any time since the adoption of the 
Federal Constitution, has the Constitution, aided only by the common- 
law remedies, afforded adequate and sufficient protection to slave prop- 
erty anywhere. The Senator goes on and says : 

„ If such protection was required in this District, it would be the duty of Congress to grant 
it If it is required in a Territory, it is the duty of the Tentorial Legislature to grant it, a 
duty which I am unwilling to believe any Territorial Leg.slature will seek to evade. 



forces itself homo upon him when h >«£ T P 8 ™? 1 ^ tbe conviction 
What has Nebraska done? WUh£ ffiSAfi 1 * , i &rtl in the face - 
a bill, by large majorities, thro eh bo th hr I I ^ 8he has P assed 
not merely refusing to give woteftion £ i nChe8 ° f her Le ^lature, 
tory, but absolutely cine lin t f om tl ^ P -° PCr ^ in that T ^ri- 
only saved from becom n~ a°h v ^1 " ^^ ™* bil1 wa * 
Governor. The executive'veto held in n ^ lnter Position of the 
on the part of that Le<42 m^ t>eDS3 a P ° sitive hostile act 
Kansas has not only refffli^ Wis^onl/tT " /"" 
this species ot pronertv lint oh* i ^ ie » lh . la «on for the protection of 
a lav/over the' If efo t' ,**ta 2V? ^ ^ ^ 
of thirty to seven, absolutdy e^ellin" '.I * ""^ Seea U stated > 
Territory. I repeat ' then to mv fH™ f r P ro l ,ert y from the 
unwilling he ma'y be to be i ve ?t X J„ T t In t ana ,'. that "°™ver 
and must foroe the convietion home on Mm ^ ^ n? ^ '? the face 

snoSrH^^S^r^Htor'/r lDdia " a - ™~* just 
see protection 4'hie d, tat Stwf taf ""^ There we not «3J 
existence of slavery. Does mv ft IL ft 8r T e ? assed Prohibiting the 

bled for legislation to-day is not ten nS? IT* 1 * 1 * We are assei *- 
dotte, the place where Kan If miIes , ? orth or 80uth of Wvan- 
an anti-slavery SSSSS Dot E?1 ^^^on to form 
Does it exist profitably all around us r 7 - f "t P rofitaU 7 here? 
Virginia ; look into their n w • * G ° mto dryland ; go into 
whether slavery does not evi ^1 m^^ 8 ' and co ™ and tell me 
latitude with LnZXdrttF^L 1 ? *>« *«"> in the same 
it has not existed profitably for ?J F f 3 \ lnf f r ">r soil ; and whether 
W*-thrtit0MBrtTS*£| 7 TrS Undred ^ ears ' and yet we are 

productions. The &&» ^^ and 8dl *° * 
cuctmns are the same. The r ^ are fi v. V f ^ 1§ V1FSln Soil > the P">- 
slaveholding States, lyin^in the sanf/l ^*> °^^ rd of a H the 
ware, Maryland, Virginia \wT lat \ tude Wlth Kansas-Dela- 
^■^ti^ki2^ 1 ^3& -^Missouri, containing a 
existed since the early settlement nf 1?° tateS m which slavery^ 
introduction of the bla k acTon thi, " ?T^ ° r from the earliest 
all times, and exists proSablv now "SkST* 5 GXisted P rofita % a t 
cannot be introduced in? , KansaH W, ^ "5 told that ^aves 
productions forbid it. g?r I beW n ' l he ^ and climate and 

"WJ i believe no such thing. If the master 



10 



A?".- S v. Mm MarvTand laws to protect U. *«. in Kansas and 
he will' lSgh to scorn your arguments about climate and sod and pro- 

'"But'hat has been the course of this Territorial ^ffXtl^I 
,bo. d it commend itself, as it seems to do, not only to Republicans, 
w t BemocTats ? What are its appeals to your forbearance ? It 

^SfSUnK r ^peri^d paction , and they 
Vip pfficient for the exclusion of slaveiy Horn a lermui^. 

i tea you, w. Spnator f r0 m Illinois are in lull force m Kansas 

promulgated %J^J*^Xb*£. the precise result which he pre- 
r$K '' My ^^SitoX«Sd tl-se doctrines as I do ; 
hut when % ZZ^to apply the corrective, they pause, hesitate, 
and finally abruptly -jrefcse. protection of slave 

Hayl tv g the Pe " titude of the L gisTature'then became one of non- 
property the f^f^^ poin f s tands as though Kansas had done 
action. 1 lie case up 10 m * \ „™wtfn0" save property, 



nothi 



e. T ESSES = .= p~.-.« tsrC' 

protection, ^J^^/^very many other things have 
tell me to wait until by ™ 4 ^'?™" h ^ m h i rea dy to interpose. 

SS myTient £SH £££. & all is lost. But more on 
^f^dZm Indiana tells me that whatever rights I have under 

This is about the extent to which my honorable friend go*.. ■ B 



11 



almost ask the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] whether he 

to take away from me a right guarantied bv the Constitution and bv 
the common law, as expounded by the Supreme Court? If I can 
establish a constitutional right, through the courts, unaided by Ms 
active interference, I doubt very much, if the Senator were President 
wfl? not i:° U ? "^ f/ ^>*i«»* inmyfavorexecuTed It 
n dn 1 ? ! 6 W ° rld - mUCh ' then ' if J ^ that my gratitude is 

B M X l ^ P T 18e i 8 °. tbis khld fror » a democratic friend 
of b1 L f ' n0t on ^. doe8 this Government refuse that sort 

ent tied W it t PTf* " ^ T! ? ritori -. te »«* I tldnk it 
entitled but it has denied us protection everywhere. It totally 
ignores the very species of property which constitutes the Treat 
moneyed interest of the country. There i s directly and indirectly de 
pendent upon the security of that property, investments of more t] an 

of" L ff ^Tl 0i d °u 1IarS - Destr °y 0Hr 12,000,000,000 worth 
of slaves and you destroy the value of the soil on which they work 

LZlZZtt VS "\° f a11 °** ««H«*y ; our stock becomes worth" 
less commeice is broken up; our cities dwindle and perish ; and yet 
Mr, this great mterest-the greatest individual interest under the 
Wernment-gets no protection from the Federal head How difFe ! 
ently does it act to wards others ! Wherever your property -oe o tt 
he land or upon the sea, Government stretches over it the s ron ' arm 
of its power and protects it. *«*trag arm 

laefnigltTfte Sfbefor^ " T the , stereot ^ ^-* 'hat the 
ui ul, or tne night before, seventeen slaves had been sniri^d +« 

ssncKaSsSfSr^aasR?** 

States say? They wo„ Id eo to Tl f P 1 "' th S "on-slaveholding 

and i ,7ni PCrty ™* P 1Ten U P' "^-intercourse would he eelared 
o ?Am caudLC'rt •'' P reCeirin " and waling ti,estol™S 
by the sSling oTbkod G0Vernm - t W0l 'ld reseat the outragefeveu 

doeVSt'ow &££ tZ l!n, YOrk ' tM ^«*^J Aether he 
proDertv was t.l "«„ ? T i < the oourseo( his section if northern 
off P a nnl o a : ,oH ar n5 wortI,°if ; ,rS '' "* " e 56eS , ° Ur ^^ ca ''™u 
he 'turns npTn u] w h 7 s ' v ^^ ^[> «£ *™ »l'l*»« to him", 
your equals in the Confederal ^" S V aW , ay - Are we not 

youis.^ i know not; sir> what other men ^ ^ ^ ^ « 



sive 

had 



12 



goes unheeded; yours would ^^enedto^ protection 

But say gentlemen on our side, in >our appeals ™ I h 

i5ut, t>.^ e ^aencv of Congress, you are departing Irom tnc 

A^g^^/^party^tto doctrine of non-intervention 

been said on that bisect. « i *, _ i endeavor to 

iQ tbC n .Tt eSt i ^tKinWe 1 ^ tolled J, pnvate letter from 
ZSS&&H of InS, ol a prLimmt member of the House, 

and now in retirement. He says . 

and will wish you success.". 

I have already replied to that point. He continues : 
To that, also, I have replied. 

. We do this for two reasons ; fust, it is not in our power to send to Congress men to 
aid you." 

We never asked impossibilities. We only say try. 

I mean to treat the question with entire fairness It * *™\*»* 
weVu agree to the doctrine of non-intervent ,on , bu t tt was to^the 
rWtrine of non-intervention as applied to the points wuju m i 
l&oints were the Wilni.t proviso and the > doctrin that a Tern 

torial legislature might P'°P«£ «*^ ac°com- 

power of Congress or the power ot aTemtora ^ 1S g ^ 

plish this result ; our opponents on the Republican siue, _ 
?he Democratic side, asserting that Congress had the ^powe ^ b & 

lar^e majority of the northern Democrats taking the ro 
Territorial Legislature could L accomplish h - { f^ ii ^ ot m allow Con- 
southern men denying it. We were asked Wl iyj* o ^ 
-ress to act and to affirm the power ; and then, it you are * 
Svfng the act is unconstitutional ^^^^XZ 
Court and have the act overthrown ? Our ^V *£ i. 



13 



S^tX'KK 3? £22* t0 S ° bef ° re * —t un- 
Congress. To this' ex tent we a- f Pmi ° n ' .° ne ** 0r the ot ^ by 
terpose your antfi^^^^JJ^*«««oii ; do not'ii 

not interpose it in our favor - * C ° Dtent that *<>* ^ 



Well, sir, what have wo Anno? xw i 
and the eourt has affirmed ou?sicl «7S V ° ^ before the »nrt, 
determined that Con<n£ 8 has n 1 ? *»**;»■ The co « r t has 
Territories. It has afc ed mor ■ ■&£„£?**' ^ ^ the 
power on a Territorial Legislature ' S? g m S8 ? a *. confer no such 
having no other powers «?] an tbo< w> ' ? •? ? er . ntorial ^^latura, 
and Congress having no power to eonT r 1 de ™ 8 . from <*»«>«* 
exercised by a ttnWSSite^^^^ Cannot be 
propositions has been affirmed no! L* And*hn«j our side of the two 
to its legitimate and proi^r cone u's^n T ^T £? beea worked oufc 
the case has been fully met i ? ' he f \ ocfcn ^ « at an end ; 

point, the Senator from Illinois 1^ > e " irel * ^ttled. At thi 
trine, a doctrine never hea do f IZTt ™ • i" alt <^<* new doc- 
could have applied became if In! 'j° W llcl1 our agreement never 
that a TerviL^U^Z^Z^^ e V? ^tence-the doctrine 
nothing, may as effectuX ?L ? i unfriendI 7 action, and by doin- 
legislation, "stilir^l^,^ ^^ ^ - ^n f ress could by direct 
niont made very often in *i,„ us ~t llave seen the state- 

members of Con-re am S^iTTTt*** heard !t affirmed by 
pat forth to J.rov°e t a Td refd letterTv. 1 T See ". elaborate ^ 
18 still affirmed, I ., ay hat we M * , & J he 0De J" st Induced-it 
interpose in defease JtA^e ZomltXti^l C ° Ugrm nCTer *°»ld 
to leave the whole qnestSn 'toX .ople o{Z°7 '' ■ '" "7" a » reed 
agreed that if the people thought '^T ♦ , e ler " tol T J that we all 
have them ; and if thev fS» P '° 11er to have slaves, they nihdit 
were not to take them tUt f L^f n °,Y° Uve «**.&*« 
way of proving this declaratim. 1 £ ¥ eed to an ^ suoh thing. By 
Senators, rerybriefly, to tome of mv fo!n £*!? ,° "P the attotio » ^ 
In a speech pronounced by mefnX S ae f c J? rat ' on s °n this point. 

1 lei "tone S) whether by Con-res, or tl . T -f- • V^ 011 ' ''>" whomsoever exercised in 

dressmg myself. Now, I wdlT „ n naqt ,°; daJ "' 'fc to which * am atI " 
to show you that I have never at , t ■> T oth er remarks of mine, 
poss.be degree from this Sine V)n tf' fe^ I? the sli gh<est 
>n reviewing a speech pronounced bv\ ? ^ ? f Febl ™T> '850, 
I uuonnceci by a then eminent Senator from 



14 



Michigan, nowtl, See^^SUte,^^ -«- « 

the people of the TemtorieB .have ttengM ^^fstie government Again. t aid 
sustain the action of the people of Ca I to rnia d ^ ^^ t t . • 

th.sc parts of the speech of General Cass, £££•> further than this-to the extent of 
« To " But he understood General Lass as go s ^ their terrlt orial 

giving to the people of the Territory ; the , nght to £clude ^ ^^^ by c ^ 

Sstelce, and, indeed, hefore gove ^J 1 * ot *^ ° Cass to be, that the occupants of the 

prolM t «M it to the last. x used this i ang uage : 

Aga m on the 13th day ot may, i > regulate their 

.. ^ruit the right of •**~**'.* 1 , SS SSffi t Jt . Ute tod- 

domestic affairs in their own way I fr ee ly ana in i y themselves, and to suit 

iTtfimselves in a country. witho ^^^ ^ fringe the rights of the owne« 
themselves. But in doing this | they ™* **°£ r e lumdrcd or one thousand American £* 
and proprietors of the soil. If, for e^rnpie, t Bntam| um nhabitea 

one species of property and %°™ ^^meni ; and any attempt to exercise it wouM 

;X J: assrs S5&SS3 * - «. ^ P o* er , wh Cn » M 

Seywere mere tenants at mil." ^ langua ge : 

Again, on the 8th of August, of the same year 

.. Give u the Constitution, as it was admin fcteied ^ the %«*£%* the relation 
and we are satisfied ; up to that time Congress "JJ^TSS equal protection ; give * to 
of master and servant. It extended **%*£*£?££ this we will not accept. You 
us to-oav in the same spirit, and we are ^f d " "f^ to ho nor the glorious banner of 
ask us to love the Constitution, to revere M* Un on and to h ^ B ^ ^ 

the stars and stripes. Excuse me, gentlemen ou a J supe rstitious reverence foi 

the day has gone by when I and my people can .cnen £ ^ ^ ^ degree 

eouak and we will remain in ''"^V™ fo,!,«lvB, our lives, and our property. 
Sand the protection of the Court*, ton te. o ^ ".J^ it ma „„ the 

KTon £ 2. ^S3£E£~* to our proper* una our^e 

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. =f ] the o«te-lay asserted,, 
the boldest and most emphatic ^^^^ on tie Democratic 
Kansas-Nebraska bill there was a umted ^Xorite theory of non- 
side to abide, through all time to come/ hy ms on ^ 
intervention I desUe Jo ^J^Xf— able 25th of May, 



15 

any amendments; but I do not mean that the bill .hull pass without my saying to the 
Senate and to the ccmnry that there are two amendments .vhieh I intended to have pro- 
Sf Ml ■! 'f DOt a T Iread7 indicated - to «stinct t,rms, that it is resolved to piss 

St ^ ,n ?! Present 1 form - I ? m not going to run counter to the sentiment of the SenaS 
hut when I have a clear and distinct opinion upon any subject, I am willin- to exor^s 
that opm.on be ore the Senate and before the world; and having a cL convfc Ln upon 
my mind that there are at least two defects in this bill, I wish, before the vote s token to 
point them out I am willing that it may stand on record, for me or a^ains n e throu X 

A ter^e i kfa "ft M heSC •"'" defeCt - S " ThC firSt lB iQ th ° ^eentlf section "f Cffi 
Alter speaking ot the Missouri compromise, it says : 

'"Which, being inconsistent with the principles' of non-intervention by Congress with 
^avery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of [ 8 50, common 
called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ' commonI > 

of 15!S!3 * N*?."! the WOnls which relate t0 the compromise measures 
of 1850, from the word 'with,' in line twenty-three, to the word 'is,' in line twentv-si* 
and insert • the Constitution of the United States:' so as to make it read ^whTch l befo* 
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, is hereby (leclared inopera iVe and 
roid I would much rather stand by the Constitution than by the compromise I hw 
much more respect for the Constitution than for the compromise. I need no say that I 
T We h Ve T ^^^promise, am not for it now and never expect to & or it 
I have been for the Constitution, am for it now, and ever expect to be for it. I acmuesce 
in the compromise Of I860, just as we all did in the compromise of 1820, without f approving 

With what propriety, then, can it be said that I agreed to the 
doctrine of non-intervention as laid down in the compromise of 1850, 
mjthe Kansas-Nebraska bill, or anywhere else ? Sir, I am at a loss to de- 
termine Ihese two points I never have waived. I never considered 
at any time, in any place, or under any circumstances, that the people 

™£ vS had . a " s ^ t0 exclude slavei T- I ^ver yielded the 
point which I insist on to-day, that Congress is bound to interpose every- 
where, upon the sea and upon the land, for the protection of my prop- 
erty and the property of my section, of my State, of my people, to the 
eameextentthatitinterposesfortheprotoctionofotherpeople'sproperty. 

■J2u ?b D ,°u fl T NeW T° rk ' f Mr - S ™d,] in his very elaborate 
speech the other day, as other Senators had done before, undertook to 
show that slavery was not only detrimental to the best interests of 
the master, but a great wrong to the slave— to the black man. 1 take 
issue with those propositions ; and without undertaking to elaborate 
the points necessarily involved, I declare again, as I did in reply to 
the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] that, in mv opinion, 
slavery is a great moral, social, and political blessing— a blessing to 
the slave, and a blessing to the master. The evidence on which I 
amrni that it is no hardship to the black man, is found in this : that 
lour millions of the negro race in the slaveholding States of this Union 
are to-day in a better condition, morally, socially, and religiously, 
than four millions of the same race anywhere on the face of God's 
Habitable globe I submit that proposition to the honorable Senator ; 
ana it there be four millions negroes on the four continents so happy, 
so contented, so well provided for, so moral, so religious, and occupy- 
ing so high a social position as the four millions of southern slaves, 
tell me where they are to be found. If they are to be found neither 
in their native land nor in foreign climes, then how do you assume 
mat they have been debased in their servile condition ? How do you 
prove that slavery has degraded them, if they are better off than their 
race anywhere else? 

But, sir, I have made up some very brief statistics, to show that 



16 

the black man in a state of slavery is more prosperous, and physically 
more vigorous, and multiplies his species in a greater ratio than he 
does in any other condition. I find in looking into national statistics 
that from 1810 to 1820—1 take 1810 because that was immediately 
after the slave trade was abolished— the slaves of the Unitejl States 
increased twenty-nine per cent.; the free blacks twenty-seven per cent. 
(I omit fractions.) From 1820 to 1830 the slave increase was thirty 
per cent., and the free black thirty-four per cent. It will be recol- 
lected that that was a season when the spirit of emancipation was 
abroad ; when Maryland was upon the very eve of emancipating her 
slaves • when Delaware virtually abolished slavery, retaining it only 
in name; when the southern slaveholding States generally were 
inclined to emancipate their slaves ; but even under this state of 
things, the free black population only gained four per cent over tne 
slave° population. From 1830 to 1840 the slaves increased twenty- 
three per cent., and the free blacks twenty per cent. From 1840 to 
1850 what do we find? While abolition has been rampant all over 
the North ■ while the underground railroad has been doing a most 
active and energetic business ; but while the Southern people, no 
longer yielding to a former feeling in favor of emancipation have been 
holding their negroes in bondage, absolutely refusing to do what tney 
had done for ten or twenty years before, emancipate them in large 
numbers ; this being the state of the case, what do we find from lo4U 
to 1850 ? That the slaves increased twenty-eight per cent., and tne 
free blacks but twelve per cent. , . . c e 

I have also made up some statistics as to the relative increase of free 
blacks in the slave States and in the free States. From 1810 to Ib^O, 
their increase in the slave States was twenty-four per cent, and in 
the free States, thirty-one per cent. ; from 1820 to 1830, m the slave 
States, it was thirty-four, and in the free States, thirty-three per cent. ; 
from 1830 to 1840, in the slave States, it was eighteen, and in toe 
free States, twenty-four per cent. ; from 1840 to 1850, it was, m the 
slave States, ten per cent., and in the free States, fourteen per cent. 
It must be constantly borne in mind that thefts, escapes, and volun- 
tary emancipation gave the North great advantages, whne the South 
increased only from natural causes. 

I deduce, "Mr. President, from these figures, this conclusion: 
that the negro, not only in the non-slaveholding States, but m the 
slaveholding States, multiplies his species more rapidly in a state o, 
slavery than* he does in a state of freedom ; that the ratio ot increase 
is greater in a state of slavery than in a state of freedom. 10 that 
extent, then, I am justified in deducing that other conclusion at which 
I arrived long since, and enunciated the other day : that, as a physi- 
cal being, and in every possible aspect in which he can be regarded, 
he is more prosperous in a state of slavery than in any other condi- 

jl °The Senator from Illinois, on the other side of the Chamber, [Mr. 
Trumbull,! told us the other day that slavery was a great wrong to 
the negro/inasmuch as it violated his inalienable rights as a man ; 
that the negro, like the white man, in the language of the declara- 
tion of Independence, was created equal, born free, and entitled to 



17 

certain inalienable rights ; and among these were life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness. The Senator afterwards qualified his state- 
ment by admitting that cases had arisen and would doubtless arise 
again, when these inalienable rights might be taken from the indi- 
vidual by society for the good of society. He admitted that the con- 
vict upon the gallows was deprived of his inalienable right to life ■ 
that the convict in the cells of a penitentiary was deprived of his 
inalienable right to liberty ; and that the man upon the gibbet and 
he in the prison were both cut short in the pursuit of happiness 
ihus he admitted that this boasted inalienable right might be taken 
even from white men, as it had been and would be again, if the good 
of society required it. I thank the Senator for the admission With 
this admission, I shall not be required to establish that you can take 
other inalienable rights from the white man or the black man if the 
good of society requires it. 

If, then, I have made good my position that slavery is no wrono- 
but a positive blessing to the black man, I have but to ask you to 
allow that southern society can judge for itself whether it is injured 
by slavery more than it would be by freedom to the black man If 
our safety, if our good, if our security, if our prosperity is promoted 
by reducing the black man to a state of slavery, and we do him no 
wrong thereby, then I turn to the Senator from Illinois and ask him 
whether, in depriving the negro to another extent than the one ad- 
mitted by himself of his inalienable right to liberty, I have done any 
wrong or violated any principle of the Declaration of Independence ? 
1 he good o. society requires you to hang a white man, and you hano- 
mm. I he good ot society requires us to enslave the black man and 
we enslave him. 

Speaking of the Declaration of Independence, I beg to say to that 
Senator, and others who constantly allude to it, that it is of authority 
only as an argument. The Declaration of Independence is the 
memorandum upon which is founded the contract entered into by the 
States. It is not the contract itself, nor is it any part of it. The Decla- 
ration of Independence was addressed to the king and the Parliament 
and the people of Great Britain. It simply formed a basis of action 
when the convention was assembled to make the Federal Constitution' 
Ihe Constitution is the contract, the Constitution is the compact, the 
Constitution is the bargain into which we entered ; and it is useless 
to read to me the mere memoranda on which the contract was based 
tor the purpose of overthrowing the contract itself. Every lawyer 
knows that, whatever may have been the basis of a contract, it is not 
binding on the parties after the contract itself has been written out 
signed sealed, and delivered. It is the Constitution which is bind- 
ing. I make these remarks simply to show, that Senators waste a 
great deal ot time unnecessarily in reading the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, even if their construction of its language is right, which I 
by no means admit; but, even admitting that their construction is 
right 1 want my rights secured, guarantied, and protected, as it is 
provided in tne Constitution, and not as you say it was suggested in 
the Declaration of Independence. 
Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] took 



18 

occasion the other day to denounce these resolutions of mine as mere 
abstractions. I beg to remind the Senator that the resolutions call 
for direct, immediate, and positive legislation — legislation needed by 
us, and guarantied, as I believe, to us by the Constitution. Shall I 
be charged with bringing in a list of abstractions when I introduced 
a proposition, as I believe, at the right time and in the right place, 
calling for such legislation as the people whom I represent absolutely 
require for the security of their property ? Is that an abstraction 
which looks to positive action on the part of this body? which calls 
on the Legislature and the Executive to give us such laws as will 
afford us protection to our lives, our liberties, and our property ? Is 
it any more an abstraction that I should call for protection for my 
slaves, than that gentlemen from New England should call for pro- 
tection for their shipping and their merchandise? Is it any more an 
abstraction that I should call for the protection of my elave property 
than that the Senator should move a resolution looking to an improve- 
ment of the breakwater in the Delaware Bay? These are not abstrac- 
tions. I beg to remind the Senator that these are resolutions which 
look to positive legislation. I purposely avoided subjecting myself to 
the imputation of having brought mere abstractions before the Senate, 
Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator from Mississippi allow me a 
moment, as he has referred to a remark that I made in reference to 
his resolutions ? 

Mr. BROWN. Certainly. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. What, Mr. President, were the contents of 
the resolutions offered by the Senator from Mississippi ? Did the 
resolutions themselves propose any immediate legislation ? Not at 
all. They were simply declaratory of certain principles, upon which 
there was a division of opinion among the people of the country. 
They declared, first, that the law-making power, wherever lodged, 
was bound to protect slave property; and that, if a Territorial Legis- 
lature neglected to perform this duty, which was incumbent on them, 
then it would become the duty of the Federal Congress to provide that 
protection. Did he show a single instance where any person pro- 
fessed to be aggrieved by non-legislation, either by a Territory or by 
Congress ? Did he present a petition from any slaveholder, in any 
part of the whole country, asking for this protection? Did he cite a 
single instance where wrong or injury had been done by withholding 
this protection ? Not one, at that time. His resolutions, in them- 
selves, did not contemplate legislative action, and he proposed no im- 
mediate legislative action. I think, therefore, I was right in declaring, 
as I did, that the resolutions of the Senator, as well as the resolutions 
of a kindred character which were then before the Senate, were simply 
resolutions in reference to abstract questions of legal right. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am very sorry that my resolutions 
have been before the Senate for nearly two months, under debate every 
week during that time, and that the Senator has not found what is 
in them. The second resolution instructs the Committee on Terri- 
tories to incorporate into any bill that they may report for the organi- 
zation of new Territories positive protection to slave property. The 
Senator says I did not propose any direct and immediate action. 



19 



Mr. SAULSBUR* . But the Senator did not show that there was 
a single slave in any Territory that was about to be organized so as 
to prove the necessity for such legislation. 

Mr. BROWN. I have not learned that ray duty as a legislator re- 
quires me to be absolutely idle until somebody petitions me to be ac- 
tive. I knew my duty, sir, and I undertook to discharge it. My dutv 
was, as I conceived, to see that that adequate protection which was 
extended to every other species of property, should be afforded to slave 
property in the Territory of Kansas. I do not need to have petitions 
sent to me to put my thoughts in motion, and stir me up to the perform- 
ance of my constitutional duty. Sir, do we never legislate here ex- 
cept on petitions ? If the Senator knew that the interest of Delaware 
was being destroyed, if he knew it as a citizen and as a Senator, would 
w ™\\ or woud f« wait u«til somebody petitioned him to act? 
Would he consider himself as bringing in an abstraction if he pro- 
posed legislation which he knew, as a citizen and as a Senator, his 
State required ? ' 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Now, I beg leave to answer that question, and 
to show that there is nothing parallel between the case which the 
resolution ot the Senator contemplates, and the case that he puts to 
me in reference to the interest of Delaware. Does the Senator know 
of a single unorganized Territory in the United States which is now 
being sought to be organized into a Territory where there are anv 
slaves to be protected ? Does he know of one where a single slave- 
holder exists whose rights are about to be injured by anv action of the 
people of such a Territory? J * 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir ; I know that the rights of slaveholders are 

assess: violated ' but that * ey ha - be - ***> s 

Mr. SAULSBURY. There the Senator applies it to organized terri- 
M SnwSr ?? 8 t TQ in referen <* to unorganized territory. 
Mr. BROWN. If the neglect, the cold neglect, of Congress to 
afford protection to this property in the organized Territories has 
resulted in the exclusion of slavery from them all, saving only New 
Mexico, had I not a right to conclude that, if other Territories were 
organized wi bout that protection, they too would be deprived of Th s 
light? If the non-action, if the neglect of Congress/added to the 
non-action and unfriendly action of Kansas, Nebraska Washington 
California and Utah, has resulted in the exclusion of slavery 1' om 

Pike's Pell A'" aUd y iT g ^^ ¥ 1 n0t a H - ht t0 concl ^e f£ 

Pike s Peak Arizona, Jefferson, and Dacotah, and all the other Terri- 

ories about to be organized, would also be deprived of slaves thron"h 

Lis a th, e t a w g h nCieS ' TheD T aSln0t ri ^ ht in the first instanced 
insist that when you propose to organize Territories, you must incor- 
porate the principle of protection into their charters? 7 The sir as 
to the Territories already organized, I proposed a bill which I suppose 
my friend from Missouri, whom I do not see in his seat, the cha rTan 
clrl h ? V^T'r ° U T r h0Tie8 > t Mr " Grekn '1 wil1 take very good 

That bil w Sl ? P 'i a Vf St lm , ta aft6r the cWleston conve^fion 
That bill was intended to overthrow the unfriendlv and unconstitu- 



20 

tional legislation of Kansas, and to afford the slaveholding States 
their equal privileges in that Territory. 

Now, sir, if the Senator from Delaware, and others, want to know 
what has been the action of Territorial Legislatures in reference to 
the protection of property of all kinds, let them consult this and other 
similar volumes. It is the laws of Kansas. I have not the time to 
read these laws ; but, to show you that that Territorial Legislature 
felt itself called upon to protect everything else but slavery, I will 
read the titles of some of their statutes. Here is an act concerning 
apprentices ; an act concerning attorneys at law ; an act concerning 
bills of exchange and negotiable promissory notes ; an act concerning 
bonds and notes ; an act for the speedy recovery of debts due on bonds 
and notes ; an act to regulate contracts and promises ; an act to provide 
for the punishment of offenses against the public health ; an act con- 
cerning divorce and alimony ; an act to prevent the sale of intoxicating 
liquors and games within certain districts ; an act concerning land- 
lords and tenants ; an act for the regulation and management of the 
territorial library ; an act respecting lost money and goods ; an act 
concerning estrays ; an act to prevent trespasses ; and so on. This 
shows that that Territorial Legislature was not disposed to leave 
everybody else as it left us — to the tender mercies of the Constitution 
and the common law. It interposed, by positive legislation, to protect 
every species of property except slave property. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator pardon me one moment? I 
do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to place myself in 
the position of denying the propriety of equal protection to slave prop- 
erty with any other species of property in a Territory. When the 
Senator shows an actual case where the slaveholder has been wronged 
in any Territory of the United States by the action of a Territorial 
Legislature, and where he has no adequate remedy to redress that 
■wrong, I, for one, shall be as ready to vote for the protection of slave 
property in a Territory as I would for the protection of any other spe- 
cies of property. I have no sympathy with those who deny that slaves 
are "property, and just as completely and just as fully as any other 
species of property known to any law of any State of this Union ; and 
I have no disposition to deny to that species of property any protection 
which any other species of property has afforded to it ; but the differ- 
ence between the Senator and myself is simply this : he supposes that 
there is a present and actual necessity for such legislation ; I have not 
seen that present necessity. 

Mr. BROWN. I have already shown that Kansas passed laws in 
the beginning to protect this kind of property. I have shown you 
that she repealed those laws and substituted nothing in their stead. I 
now go further, and show you that in derogation of the authority of 
Congress, and in violation of its laws, the people of that Territory 
have assembled through their delegates in convention, and made an 
anti-slavery constitution, thug setting the authority of Congress at 
defiance. I next show you that they have passed a law positively 
abolishing slavery in the Territory, thus setting the authority of the 
Supreme Court at defiance. I then go one step further, and show you 
that they have passed, within the last few days, a personal liberty 



21 

bill, more odious in its terms than even a similar bill passed by the 
Legislature of the State of Massachusetts. I send the bill to the Sec- 
retary's desk, and ask him to read it. 
The Secretary read, as follows : 

AN ACT to secure freedom to all persons within the Territory of Kansas. 

^ifhinV.'—r'' h l the G u 0t u r ?° r and Le Z islati ™ Assembly of the Territory of Kansas : No person 
wthinth.s remtory shall be considered as property, or subject, as such, to sale, purchase 
or dehvery : nor shall any person, within the limits of this Territory, at any time be deonved 
of liberty or property without due process of law. 7 ' ae P nveu 

^ S /fi' 2 'a ^process of law, mentioned in the preceding section of this act, shall, in all cases 
be defined .o mean the usual process and forms in force by the laws of the Territo v ami 

by jury 7 C0UrtS therC ° f '' and UndGr SUCh pr ° CCSS SUch p ' rso » s sha11 b ° entitled to a tnal 

H^n'H^ heneVer !i n - y , perS0n , in this Territory shall be deprived of liberty, arrested or 
deta.necTSn the ground that such person owes service or labor to another person 3 lv 
reside either with,,, or without this Territory, either party may claim a trial by i^v and in 
Jh^deSam^ 6 *** b ° nefiU ° f ^HeWpn.videJfo/by llw, in anySe, Ml^oweS 
W T/L'l; EVC T pe T D f W 8ha ! 1 . de P rive - °* attempt to deprive, any other person of his or 

S5SBH 3 Uie P r iS,0 " S ° f th , 6 P reoedin « 8ecti ™ 8 of «* ■«* •«»«». ««> convic- 
tion thereof, forfeit and pay a fine not exceeding $2,000, nor less than f 500, or be imprisoned in 
some jail in the Territory for a term not exceeding imprisoned in 

» I'™ 5 ' EV / ry PerS ° D ,,Vh ° 8ha11 h0ld ' 0r attempt t0 hold - in this Territory, in slavery, or as 
a slave, any free person m any form, or for any time, however short, under a pretence that 
such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned i th peniten 

SKssasfa*.' tenn not less thaa one year - n;r more than »^*ot 

repealed. *" aCtS ' *** ^'^ ° f ^ iacon8istent with the provisions of this act, are hereby 
Sec. 7. This act shall take effect from its passage. 

Mr BROWN. Thus we sec, Mr. President, that the Territorial 
Legislature of Kansas deprives us of our rights by non- action and 
untriendly action ; goes on and adopts a constitution in violation of 
the authority of Congress ; passes a law in derogation of a decision of 
the Supreme Court positively prohibiting slavery ; and then winds up 
the whole affair with that personal liberty bill ; and still we are asked 
to told our arms and rely on the Constitution and the common law to 
give us protection. Sir, the gentlemen who have so much faith in 
courts, unaided by statutory laws, go far ahead of the teachings of 
my experience. Why, sir, I should as soon think of proceeding 
against John Brown, to get back again into the armory at Harper's 
I< erry by an action of ejectment, relying on the court to give me a 
judgment of ouster, and then sending the sheriff with his ©owe to 
turn him out, as to rely on the courts, aided only by the Constitution 
and the common law, to give me protection for my rights, in the face 
of such legislation as this. 

What I demand is protection— that protection which you admit we 
are entitled to under the common Constitution. Give it to us now ; do 
it at once. You see what delays have produced. You see of what 
right, ot what liberty, of what privileges, we have been deprived by 
your non-action heretofore. Still you ask us to wait. We have lost 
lerntory after Territory beyond redemption, and all for what? Not 
because the soil and climate and production were against us, but be- 
cause we had no law to protect us. We waited under these specious 
pleas that our rights would not be snatched from us, until they are 



22 



gone without hope of recovery. We come again and ask protection, 
and you tell us still to wait. 

Sir I find published in the gazettes of the day a series ot resolu- 
tions ' said, I have no reason to doubt, correctly, to have been agreed 
upon in a caucus of Democratic Senators. To the first, second, and 
third, and to the sixth and seventh of those resolutions, I make no ob- 
jection, and therefore shall offer no comment. The fourth and fifth do 
not so precisely meet my approbation. The fourth resolve is in these 



words: 



- i Resolved That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legis- 



remains" 

I have only a verbal criticism to make on that resolution. I like 
the word " right" better than the word " power." I can see very 
well that a Territorial Legislature may have the power to accomplish 
•the result without doing it rightfully. I have seen that result ac- 
complished already ; accomplished wrongfully ; still it was the exer- 
cise of power. I have no expectation, no belief, that the word was 
introduced with any other than the same purpose that I would have, 
if I substituted a different word ; and therefore I criticise the intro- 
duction of it here in no unfriendly spirit. I suppose ;^™ inte ^ ed 
to be used as synonymous with the word » right. J\ ith that alter- 
ation in the resolution I should be satisfied. The fifth resolution is 
in these words : 

"5 Rmlved, That if experience shouM at any time prove that the P^*» d .^^ 
remed^for That purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such defic.ency. ^ 

Sir I think the duty of Congress commences at an earlier period 
than is designated in this resolution. I am not willing to wait tor 
experience to demonstrate that which experience has already demon- 
strated So far as my individual action is concerned I base it upon 
my own conviction that experience has proved in the last seventy years 
all that experience will prove for seventy years to come bir, it ex- 
rer ence lii not already shown us that protection by direct and im- 
mediate legislation, is necessary for the security of slave : prope y in 
the Territories, in my opinion it never will demonstrate that iac . 1 
have said before, and now repeat, in this connection ^at exWnce 
in every one of the slaveholding States has shown that legislation is 
necessary in aiding the Executive and judiciary to give protection to 
S s kind of property Such legislation has been found necessary ■ m 
Mississippi, necessary in Louisiana, necessary in all the s laveho ding 
States wVthout a solitary exception, so far as I am mfomed or bel ve 
If experience has shown that legislation is necessary in all the s aye 
States why are we called upon to wait until experience shall demon- 
st^tha/a like necessity exists in a Territory? I see nc > reason f 
it I think experience has shown us that, unaided by statutory 

aw, tlavery hasnot been protected in Kansas ; it has not been pro- 
tected in any of the Territories ; but it has been driven out by the 
force of pubHc opinion in derogation of the rights of the master, and, 



• 23 

as I honestly believe, in total disregard of the guarantees of the 
Constitution. 

emedSs" if "^ territorial S overnment should fail or refuse to provide the necessary 

Why, sirs, have they not already failed and refused ? Have I not 
read document after document from Kansas, showing that they have 
failed and refused? Why wait? If you are going to legislate 
actively, when it shall he shown that they have failed and refused 
then you must do it now. They have failed ; they have refused ' 
they have passed positive laws hostile to slavery— personal liberty 
bills ; bills abolishing slavery ; bills repealing former laws protecting 
slavery II all this does not prove that Kansas has failed and re°- 
fused, r^fo not know what evidence we shall require to be convinced 
on that point. 

Only, Mr. President, with a view to indicate my own clear convic- 
tions on this subject, and with no expectation that the proposition is 
to be received with greater favor in the Senate than it was received 
elsewhere, I give notice that when this resolution is brought to a vote 
ot the Senate, I shall move this amendment : 

That experience having already shown that the Constitution and the common law, unaided 
by statutory enactment do not afford adequate and sufficient protection to slave property 

l°Z e Zt jT lt0 /r S hlVing faUed ' ° therS havin S refused > to Pass such enactment This 
become the duty of Congress to interpose and pass such laws as will afford to slave p operty 
in the Territories that protection which is given to other kinds of property. P ro Pe"y 

I say that it is my purpose to propose this amendment. I shall 
vote for it myself If it tails, then I shall vote for the resolution as it 
stands, and chiefly because of the concluding words. When these 
things shall have happened, when we get the necessary experience, 
and when the Territorial Legislature shall have been shown to fail 
and refuse, then the resolution says "it will be the duty of Confess 
to supply such deficiency." In that, I get a recognition of the prin- 
ciple for which I contend, that it is your duty to act. You refuse to 
act now. That is the gravamen of my complaint. You want a 
greater amount of evidence to bring your minds to the conclusion 
than I require to bring my mind to the conclusion. I think both the 
contingencies on which you base your determination to act, to pass 
Jaws for the protection of slave property, have already happened! I 
do not feel, myself, that any further experience is necessary to demon- 
strate tnat the courts, unaided by statutory law, cannot afford pro- 
tection I think we have abundant evidence that the Territories 
some of them, at least, have failed and refused to afford this protect 
tion ; and so thinking, I am prepared to act now. If my friends 
will not be convinced, I will signify my own convictions ; and then 
sit down quietly, and wait until their minds are brought to the same 
conclusion as my own. I hope, if we are ever to have protection, wc 
shall get it whue it may be useful, and not have it mockingly 
slaVer Territories are hopelessly lost to the South and to 

To talk merely about protection, and to do nothing, is a very idle 
ceremony. If we present a case demanding protection, you ought to 
meet it ,ike men. If we have no case, say so, and let us quit talking 



24 

about it. Promises about what Congress will do years hence, when 
we shall be out and others in our places, are not worth the paper on 
which they are recorded 

Apologizing, Mr. President, for having detained the Senate so 
long, I yield the floor. 



25 



REPLY OF SENATOR FITCH. 



Mr FITCH said : Mr. President, some of the remarks of the senator 
from MiBsfesippi call for a brief T > frQm me <» ~ 

dulgence of the Senate for but a very short time, aware, as I am, from 
the lateness of the hour, that members must be extremely anxious To 
leave the chamber. The senator spoke in complimentary terms of the 
supposed efficacy of my professional, my medical prescripts bu? 
appears ad verse to taking my political prescriptions-deems them inert 
1 trust it will be many years before the senator requires a prescription 

wTtht't [?*? °t! S? b ° dily h x> ealth - M ^ y he Hve a thourand y ars 
without a single bodily pang. But, sir, he is badly diseased politically ; 

£St?w W , D ?? r ^ l r e i th ? disea8e ' or > Percemng it, will no 
admit its existence. He is like the victim of that scourge of our race 
in variable climates-the consumption ; the victim who, even while 
passing away under the ravages of the disease, natters himself that 

hL LhX p ,n:r it; r, d fancie ? that his friencis > wh ° se ■«**>£££ 

£™ *« ^aily about him, are laboring under some strange 
senator that he is the subject, and likely to become the victim of a 
nrTafrtT^ 011 ?^ 1 ^" 1 ^- P °«ibly /could Point out the appro! 
prescription for his benefit, possessed of curative powers equal to those 
he has been pleased to assign to my professional. But I much fear 

he ^Cld e not a ra! ndlCated *"■' P W0U T ld « 0t «*<** ^ treatment Vha 
me and thot St ^ ^f cri P tl0n 1 5 1 m *<* fear me that he prefers to 
Sent NoHW a g Wlth , me T ° Ur rem ^dies, to patronize an emi- 
nostnfm I lr whT^' ^T* \?* Uy a P°™caf empiric, and his 
us tX tW ■ > the S ? Dat0r WlH not llimself > as hG h^ assured 

suit ThL llT V Tl nost ™ m8 > deemin S them poisonous, yet he con- 
toward h is S£j* thGir effect f/!Pon others, and pursues such course 
toward his nostrums as may well induce others to take them 

tect sLTfnr^Prt'v Slgned *° pr °I e thafc the COmmon law cannot pro- 
tect slave property, is an argument against the truth of history Afri- 

he ommL7al firS V, nt ; 0C l UCed int0 ^^ and ifcs P™*"™" imder 
law T\Z • i i Jt firSt , Came t0 this C0Uutl T ^ev the common 

elrs its Ww' a / d th r°"S ho »t the English dependencies for 
jears its sole protection from the common law-years durin- which it 
most flourished ; years during which it acquired that vi "or which has 

e P xLCrtl;vfn ft H- thi8t ^ e ' P"* I™'** the --to^dl said 
wlS I r i 7 i S C0Untl T> but wherever the Anglo-Saxon race 

which ft has W " g0Vernm « n , t ' eXC6pt in the P articular ^«tances in 
rtnvltr s «P e rseded by particular legislative acts. It exists 

Inboth^ States but in Territories alike. 

in both anke it is recognized by the courts, except where it comes in 



26 

conflict with some constitutional legislative enactment. Well, sir, 
one of its first axioms is, that every right has its remedy. I would 
say, then, to the senator from Mississippi, he has but to establish his 
right, and the remedy necessarily goes with it. The Constitution has 
assefted the right of the South as coequal with that of the North in 
the Territories. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right. _ The 
Constitution, the courts, and the common law, will protect the right. 
A territorial legislature may so regulate as to improve that protection. 
If it refuses so to do, it practices the doctrine of non-action recently 
inculcated, and evades its duty ; but it cannot go any further in that 
direction ; it cannot violate its duty and the Constitution by destroy- 
ing, or even impairing, the right ; however, it may make the attempt. 
A modern school of politicians reasons thus : if a territorial legisla- 
ture has the right to protect and to regulate the protection of slave 
property, it has the right to impair its value ; if it has the right to 
impair its value, it has the right to destroy it. What absurdity of 
reasoning, if it can be called reasoning ! My friend from Mississippi 
dissents from the rationale, but arrives at its conclusion. 

The Constitution guaranties to every citizen life, liberty, and his 
property. The Constitution, the courts, and the common law protect 
these rights. A legislature may so regulate as to improve this pro- 
tection. A legislature may, for instance, vary the punishment for a 
violation of these lights. It may vary the punishment for taking life; 
but does the power to vary the punishment for taking life carry with 
it the power, by direct or indirect action, to lessen the value of the 
life of the innocent citizen? the power to place his life in daily jeopardy? 
the power to destroy his life ? The latter proposition might as well be 
maintained as a similar one relative to the power to protect property. 

I shall allude to but one— time will not allow more — of the senator's 
illustrations in support of his opinion that the common law is impo- 
tent to the protection of slave property. He asks, " if, a man decoys 
my slave from one county to another adjoining, what remedy have 
I ? ' ' He admitted that he had a remedy, but objected that the remedy 
must necessarily be applied day after day. We can look at this illus- 
tration made by him in the very same light with another illustration 
which I have heard, if I mistake not, from the same senator. At all 
events, I will couple the two. It has been objected to the common 
law that it contained no provision against, and provided no punish- 
ment for, selling liquor to slaves ; and that, in the absence of such 
law, their owners might find them, at times, not only useless and 
troublesome, but mischievous. The difficulty in both cases, in the 
illustration of to-day and the previous one, is not in punishing the act, 
but it is in proving it. Laws exist, I presume, in every slaveholdiug 
State prohibiting and punishing the sale of spirits to slaves, prohibit- 
ing and punishing the decoying away of a negro. If a negro, when he 
is owned as property, is found in the possession, without permission 
of law or owner, of some other person, the possession implies the fact 
that such person has decoyed him away, and is proof sufficient; but 
if he is found running at large, no one is responsible for his being so, 
unless the fact can be carried home to some individual that he did 
decoy him away. How is the fact to be established ? Or if a slave 



27 

is found intoxicated, and thus useless, how are you to prove that any 
white man sold him spirits in violation of law ? You cannot do it 
under the existing statutes. The slaveholding States, and several of 
the non-slaveholding, prohibit a negro's testimony being received 
against a white man ; and the white man will decoy the negro, or 
sell him spirits in the presence of only the negro race. What, then, 
is the senator's remedy, if he has it not under the common law ? 
Would he come here and ask Congress to do that which his own legis- 
lature has declined doing — put the negro on a level with the white man 
in the courts, put his slave on an equality with the senator himself 
before a court? Surely he would not ask that kind of congressional 
legislation ; and if he did, respect for ourselves, if not for the gov- 
ernment of which we are a part, would compel us to deny it. 

He points us to the action of the legislatures of Nebraska and 
Kansas in proof of the necessity of congressional intervention, and in 
justification of the intervention he asks in his resolutions and bill. 
What is that action ? The legislature of Nebraska passed a law pro- 
hibiting slavery. The governor vetoed it, and the veto was sus- 
tained. Surely, on this abortive attempt at usurpation of power, the 
senator cannot base an application for protection of slave property in 
Nebraska, even if property of that kind existed there for protection, 
which is not the case. The legislature of Kansas passed a similar act, 
and that, too, was vetoed, but passed again over the veto. The sen- 
ator, in commenting on the resolutions last introduced by his col- 
league, stated that the remedies for protection of southern property 
in Territories, except such remedies as Congress might afford, were 
exhausted, and therefore Congress must intervene. Not so, even in 
Kansas. The judiciary yet stands between the right sought to be 
destroyed by the Kansas legislature and the usurpation by which the 
destruction of that right is sought. Who can doubt what the decision 
of that judiciary will be ? No one who has read the Dred Scott 
decision can for a moment doubt that the courts, upon appeal, will 
declare the recent attempt at usurpation in Kansas, by a prohibitory 
act, null and void, and leave the owners of slave property there in 
the possession of their common-law remedies for protection — remedies 
which, in my estimation, will be found quite sufficient. This action 
to which he has pointed was the first, but the legitimate, fruit of the 
doctrine promulgated by the senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas ;) 
and it was hastened or induced in part, doubtless, from a supposition 
upon the part of the territorial legislatures that the overshadowing 
influence of that senator would induce a congressional sanction of 
their usurpation. When this expectation has been disappointed, as 
it will be, and when those legislatures have been rebuked by the 
courts for their attempted usurpation, as we know in advance, from 
the Dred Scott decision, they will be, such action will not be repeated 
by those or any other territorial legislatures, and the doctrine on 
which it is based will soon cease to be entertained ; unless, indeed, 
the senator from Mississippi and others who may be disposed to aid 
him secure the nomination for the presidency of the main pillar of the 
doctrine, and thus make it a settled governmental policy. 



28 

The absence of any special legislative protection for slave property 
may, I grant you, subject the owners of that property to inconveni- 
ences, to annoyances ; but certainly to none greater than are the owners 
of other self-moving, locomotive property daily subjected — inconve- 
niences and annoyances requiring vigilance for the preservation of 
property, but not affecting its title, nor necessarily its possession. We 
must not create, and we should not be asked to create — and I doubt 
our right to grant the request if it is asked — rights either for the North 
or for the South, by legislation ; but it is our duty, the duty of every 
department of the Government, to see that rights granted by, or recog- 
nized by, the Constitution, receive adequate protection. The power 
of the judiciary to grant such protection cannot be questioned ; because 
the judiciary derives its power from the Constitution, which asserts 
the right ; and the judiciary was created by that Constitution for the 
very purpose of asserting and defending rights under it. Hitherto, 
the courts have been found possessed of the required means for the ad- 
equate exercise of that power. If, at any time hereafter, they are 
found deficient in those means, and the local legislature refuses to 
grant them, it will be the duty of Congress to supply the deficiency in 
support of the courts ; but it is not the duty, and scarce the right, of 
Congress to grant that general legislation in advance contemplated by 
the Senator's resolutions, and asked by his bill. Such legislation 
would be a departure, as he has well said, from that great principle 
of non-intervention we have so long sustained — a principle now so 
necessary, as it has been heretofore, for our success ; and not only for 
t'hat, but so necessary for harmony between the Northern and South- 
ern wings of the only party which has its members from the lakes to 
the Gulf. 

As with the senator's special "decoy " argument, adverse to the 
common law, so with his others ; their fallacy generally can be shown ; 
and, indeed, the impolicy and inutility, one or both, of most of the 
congressional legislation he asks for the Territories, can be easily de- 
monstrated ; but I do not design to consume the time of the Senate 
with any lengthy arguments on the subject. I shall leave them to 
abler heads. Far better leave the protection of an established right 
to the Constitution, the courts, and the great unwritten common law, 
which is the sense of right among intelligent men, their common sense 
and that of the courts, than to that over-legislation asked for in the 
senator's bill, and which would subject him to more inconvenience, 
more annoyance, in observance of its provisions, than will the absence 
of all legislation. 



29 



APPENDIX. 



February 23, 1860, Mr. Brown introduced the following bill, which, haying 
been twice read, was referred to the Committee on Territories, Mr. Green, 
chairman. 

AN ACT to punish offences against slave property in the Territory of Kansas. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. That every person, bond or 
free, who shall be convicted of actually raising a rebellion or insurrection of 
slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, in the Territory of Kansas, shall suffer 
death. 

Sec 2. Every free person who shall aid or assist in any rebellion or insur- 
rection of slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, or shall furnish arms or do 
any overt act in furtherance of such rebellion or insurrection, shall' suffer 
. death. 

Sec. 3. If any free person shall, by speaking, writing, or printing, advise 
persuade, or induce any slaves to rebel, conspire against, or murder any citizen 
of said Territory, or shall bring into, print, write, publish, or circulate or 
cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall 
knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, writing, publishing or 
circulating in said Territory any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular 
lor the purpose of exciting insurrection, rebellion, revolt, or conspiracy on 
the part of the slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, against the citizens of said 
territory, or any part of them, such person shall be guilty of felony and on 
conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than 'ten 
years. 

Sec 4. If any person shall entice, decoy, or carry away out of said Terri- 
tory any slave belonging to another, with intent to deprive the owner 
thereot of the services of such slave, or with intent to effect or procure the 
freedom of such slave, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larcenv and on 
conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five 
nor more than ten years. 

t Sec 5. If any person shall aid or assist in enticing, decoying, or persuad- 
ing, or carrying away, or sending out of said Territory any slave belon°-ino- 
to another, with intent to procure or effect the freedom of such slave' or 
with intent to deprive the owner thereof of the services of such slave 'he 
shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny, and, on conviction thereof, shall 
be imprisoned at hard labor tor not less than five years, nor more than ten 
years. 

Sec. 6. If any person shall entice, decoy, or carry awav out of any State 
or other Territory of the United States any slave belonging to another 
with intent to procure or effect the freedom of such slave, or to deprive the 
owner thereof of the services of such slave, and shall bring such slave into 
said territory of Kansas, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny in 
the same manner as if such slave had been enticed, decoyed, or carried 
away out of said Territory of Kansas, and in such case the larceny may bo 
charged to have been committed in any county of said Territory of Kansas 
into or through which such slave shall have been brought by such person' 
and, on conviction thereof, the person offending shall be imprisoned' at hard 
labor tor not less than five years, nor more than ten years. 



30 

Sec. 7. If any person shall entice, persuade, or induce any slave to escape 
from the service of his master or owner in the said Territory of Kansas, or 
shall aid or assist any slave in escaping' from the service of his master or 
owner, or shall aid, assist, harbor, or conceal any slave who may have 
escaped from the service of his master or owner, shall he deemed guilty of 
felony, and be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not loss than five 
years, nor more than ton years. 

Sec. 8. If any person in the said Territory of Kansas shall aid or assist, 
harbor or conceal any slave who lias escape 1 from the service of his master 
or owner in another State or Territory, such person shall be punished in like 
manner as if such slave had escaped from the service of his master or owner 
in the said Territory of Kansas. 

Sec: l .l If any person shall resisi any officer while attempting to arrest 
any slave that may have escaped From the service of his master or owner, 
or shall rescue such slave when in custody of any officer or other person, or 
shall entice, persuade, aid or assist such slave to escape from the custody of 
any officer or other person who may have such slave in custody, whether 
such slave has escaped from the service of his master or owner in said Ter- 
ritory of Kansas or in any State or other Territory, the person so offending 
shall be guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor fur 
not less than two years, nor more than live years. 

Sec 10. If any marshal, sheriff, or constable, or the deputy of any such 
officer, shall, when required by any poison, refuse to aid or assist in the 
arrest and capture of any slave who may have escaped from the service of 
his master or owner in any Territory or Slate, such officer shall he lined in a 
sum of not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than live hundred dollars. 

Sec. 11. If any person print, write, introduce into, publish, or circulate, or 
cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall 
knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating 
within the Territory of Kansas any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, hand 
bill, or circular containing any statements, arguments, opinions, sentiment, 
doctrine, advice, or innuendo calculated to produce a disorderly, dangerous, 
or rebellious disaffectiqn among the slaves in the Territory of Kansas, of to 
induce such slaves to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist 
their authority, he shall be guilty of felony, and be punished by imprison- 
ment and hard labor for a term not less than five years, nor more than ten 
years. * 

Sec. 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain 
that persons have not the right to hold slaves in the Territory of Kansas, or 
shall introduce into the said Territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or 
cause to be introduced into the said Territory, written, printed, published, 
or circulated in said Territory any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or 
circular containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in said 
Territory, such person's shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by 
imprisonment at hard labor for a term riot less than two years, nor more than 
live years. 

Sec 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or 
who does not admit the right to hold slaves in the Territory of Kansas, shalL 
sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for any violation of any of the 
sections of this act. 

Sec 14. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to cause this law to 
be published for sixty days from and after its passage in at hast three news- 
papers in the Territory of Kansas; and from and after the expiration of such 
period it shall be in full force. 



54 »» 






rocv 



-• »°rk : : 



A. <P" * ' ' VV 

A* ,V§SW# ^ & ♦Wgfe-% ° <<* 



^\ 



o. 



"',o* 6 .-'J^« ^>, 



^^ 






A> 




V* 



r f « • •* 



** % 



m 



& .w 









IT* .«? 






^6< 



"b^ 






* at *u • 






*°** 







«feV* 







♦^ : .W: a»"% 



fe\ /&&>* /s^kS* *tftf£*°- 




